Math Rankings: is this accurate?

Yassouid · July 16, 2010, 10:46pm

NRC Rankings in Mathematics

1 Princeton 4.94
2 Cal Berkeley 4.94
3 MIT 4.92
4 Harvard 4.90
5 Chicago 4.69
6 Stanford 4.68
7 Yale 4.55
8 NYU 4.49
9 Michigan 4.23
10 Columbia 4.23
11 Cal Tech 4.19
12 UCLA 4.14
13 Wisconsin 4.10
14 Minnesota 4.08
15 Cornell 4.05
16 Brown 4.04
17 Cal San Diego 4.02
18 Maryland 3.97
19 Rutgers 3.96
20 SUNY Stony Brook 3.94
21 Illinois 3.93
22 Penn 3.87
23 Texas 3.85
24 Rice 3.82
25 Purdue 3.82
26 Washington 3.76
27 Northwestern 3.71
28 Ohio State 3.66
29 Johns Hopkins 3.65
30 CUNY 3.65
31 Brandeis 3.64
32 Illinois Chicago 3.58
33 Indiana 3.53
34 Duke 3.53
35 Utah 3.52
36 Penn State 3.50
37 Washington (St. Louis) 3.42
38 Carnegie Mellon 3.41
39 North Carolina 3.24
40 Southern Cal 3.23
41 Georgia Tech 3.19
42 Virginia 3.18
43 Notre Dame 3.11
44 Oregon 3.06
45 Michigan State 3.05
46 Cal Santa Barbara 3.04
47 Boston University 3.03
48 RPI 3.02
49 Dartmouth College 2.97
50 Arizona 2.96
51 Florida 2.95
52 Cal Santa Cruz 2.92
53 Rochester 2.90
54 North Carolina State 2.90
55 Massachusetts 2.90
56 Georgia 2.90
57 Pittsburgh 2.88
58 Iowa 2.85
59 Texas A&M 2.84
60 Cal Irvine 2.84
61 Colorado 2.83
62 VPI 2.79
63 SUNY Buffalo 2.79
64 Houston 2.78
65 SUNY Binghamton 2.74
66 LSU 2.74
67 Kentucky 2.72
68 Temple 2.67
69 Syracuse 2.62
70 Claremont 2.61
71 South Carolina 2.60
72 Tulane 2.59
73 Tennessee 2.59
74 Iowa State 2.59
75 Cal Riverside 2.55

Source: [NRC</a> Rankings in Mathematics](<a href=“http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/area31.html]NRC”>NRC Rankings in Mathematics)

eatsalot · July 17, 2010, 2:54am

1) these are so old
2) these are for grad schools

tk21769 · July 17, 2010, 6:40am

US News also has Math rankings. They also are for graduate schools. However, they are much more current, and they give break-downs by sub-fields.

fallenchemist · July 17, 2010, 9:31am

No rankings for undergrad are accurate. It is simply not possible, because at the undergrad level you will not be involved in significant research, unless you are a one in a million prodigy. Math is one of those disciplines that requires a lot of courses that build on each other, and this will be similar at every school that is in the USNWR top 100 at least. Besides the intro calculus courses, which you may well have placed out of a couple of semesters, you still will have Calc 3, Differential Equations, Number Theory, Real Analysis (probably 2 semesters), Partial Diff EQ, stats, maybe a topography related course, graph theory, etc. Between these courses and fulfilling the school distribution requirements, there is no point in worrying about who is “ranked” highest. Math is math in terms of the material, and a high ranking is no guarantee of good and interesting teachers. In fact, the highest ranked schools are more likely to give you grad students teaching the 4 or 5 lowest level courses. You might not see a prof until a 300 level course at some of these places. Just for fun, I checked out the Princeton offerings and compared them to the Tulane offerings. There is virtually no difference, although there are 70 schools between them on that ranking. Not really all that surprising because as was said, the rankings are for grad schools. Princeton is justly famous for having one of the finest math institutes in the world, while Tulane is a very undergrad focused school. Don’t get me wrong, Princeton is wonderful and pretty undergrad focused compared to Harvard and Yale.

My point is that you should pick a school where you really want to be for 4 years regardless of the “prestige”, either of the math department or the school. To have a career in math you will have to go to grad school anyway, that is when you worry about prestige and rankings. Decide what size school you want, the location both in terms of urban vs, rural and weather, Greek scene, sports, art, music, whatever is important to you in your non-academic life. Finding a school that fits overall will make you happier as a person and therefore make the college experience a better one for you. Of course it needs to be affordable also, so if money is an issue you want to be looking at schools through that prism as well.

collegehelp · July 17, 2010, 10:19am

Gourman Report ranking for undergrad math:
Princeton
UC Berkeley
Harvard
MIT
U Chicago
Stanford
NYU
Yale
Wisconsin Madison
Columbia
Michigan Ann Arbor
Brown
Cornell
UCLA
Illinois Urbana Champaign
Caltech
Minnesota
U Penn
Notre Dame
Georgia Tech
U washington
Purdue WL
Rutgers NB
Indiana U Bloomington
U Maryland College Park
Rice
UC San Diego
Northwestern
Texas Austin
carnegie Mellon
Johns Hopkins
Washington U St Louis
Ohio State
SUNY Stony Brook
Penn State
UVA
RPI
Illinois Chicago
U Colorado Boulder
U Kentucky
UNC Chapel Hill
Dartmouth
U Rochester
U Utah
SUNY Buffalo
Tulane
USC
UC Santa Barbara
U Massachusetts AMherst
U Oregon
Duke
Louisiana State Baton Rouge
U Arizona
case Western
Michigan State
U Pittsburgh
Brandeis
US Air Force Academy

collegehelp · July 17, 2010, 10:20am

I’ve heard St Olaf is very good for math among LACs.

LACs for math from Rugg’s:
Bates
Bowdoin
Bucknell
Carleton
Colgate
Dartmouth
Davidson
Dickinson
Harvey Mudd
Holy Cross
Kenyon
Mount Holyoke
Occidental
Pomona
Rice
St Mary’s (MD)
St Olaf
Trinity (CT)
Union
Wabash
Wellesley
Wheaton
Whitman
Willamette

fallenchemist · July 17, 2010, 11:22am

I wish there was a way to put a flashing red message on this web site somehow about the Gourman report.

It is over 10 years old and was roundly panned when it came out. The methodology was absurd.

Please stop trying to propogate undergrad rankings of any type. They make no sense.

Rice is an LAC? That is news to me, and to USNWR. Also, if you are going to cite Wheaton you have to be specific about Illinois or Massachusetts. Completely different schools.

collegehelp · July 17, 2010, 1:12pm

The Gourman Report rankings are pretty accurate. Notice the general agreement with NRC ranking about top schools. The Gourman methodology was a good methodology.

Rankings are very useful. Better than ignorance.

bingle · July 17, 2010, 2:20pm

one way to look at ug program strength is baccalaureate origins of doctorates. 
collegehelp - St Olaf is strong in math/cs. From their website -

<h1>According to the National Science Foundation’s Survey of Earned Doctorates, St. Olaf ranks 8th overall among the nation’s 213 baccalaureate colleges in the number of graduates who go on to earn doctoral degrees.</h1>

St. Olaf earned top 10 rankings in the following fields: mathematics and statistics (1st); religion and theology (2nd); arts and music (3rd); foreign languages (3rd); chemistry (6th); physics (8th); and biological sciences (10th).

noimagination · July 17, 2010, 2:24pm

The NRC rankings are a pretty good measure for departmental strength. For LACs, go to IPEDS and look at the total number of math majors. IIRC, St. Olaf and Williams are both very good.

RML · July 17, 2010, 2:44pm

No ranking is accurate.

collegehelp · July 17, 2010, 3:22pm

Here is a list of top Liberal Arts Colleges sorted according to the proportion of bachelors graduates who majored in math. From 2004 IPEDS.

college, SAT 75th percentile, total bachelors graduates, number of bachelors in math, proportion of math graduates

HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE 1560 176 16 0.09
BRYN MAWR COLLEGE 1410 299 21 0.07
WABASH COLLEGE 1310 181 13 0.07
BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN COLLEGE 1300 236 12 0.05
HENDRIX COLLEGE 1340 230 12 0.05
ILLINOIS WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY 1380 462 22 0.05
REED COLLEGE 1460 310 16 0.05
SAINT OLAF COLLEGE 1340 708 37 0.05
SPELMAN COLLEGE 1140 533 27 0.05
SWEET BRIAR COLLEGE 1255 132 7 0.05
COLLEGE OF THE HOLY CROSS 1350 675 29 0.04
GRINNELL COLLEGE 1490 367 13 0.04
HAVERFORD COLLEGE 1460 323 13 0.04
ST LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY 1250 499 20 0.04
SWARTHMORE COLLEGE 1530 364 14 0.04
CENTRE COLLEGE 1340 258 9 0.03
COLLEGE OF WOOSTER 1330 391 10 0.03
FRANKLIN AND MARSHALL COLLEGE 1360 433 12 0.03
HOLLINS UNIVERSITY 1280 189 5 0.03
KALAMAZOO COLLEGE 1380 285 8 0.03
KNOX COLLEGE 1340 265 9 0.03
MACALESTER COLLEGE 1450 428 14 0.03
MILLS COLLEGE 1280 194 5 0.03
PRINCIPIA COLLEGE 1270 113 3 0.03
ST MARY’S COLLEGE OF MARYLAND 1350 396 10 0.03
UNION COLLEGE 1340 132 4 0.03
URSINUS COLLEGE 1320 361 12 0.03
WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY 1450 398 11 0.03
WHEATON COLLEGE 1300 356 10 0.03
WILLIAMS COLLEGE 1520 531 16 0.03
ALBION COLLEGE 1220 309 7 0.02
ALLEGHENY COLLEGE 1300 455 10 0.02
AMHERST COLLEGE 1550 428 7 0.02
AUGUSTANA COLLEGE 1300 540 11 0.02
BARNARD COLLEGE 1430 600 11 0.02
BATES COLLEGE 1420 450 9 0.02
BELOIT COLLEGE 1300 261 5 0.02
BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY 1380 856 18 0.02
CARLETON COLLEGE 1480 455 8 0.02
COLBY COLLEGE 1430 486 12 0.02
COLGATE UNIVERSITY 1430 646 13 0.02
DAVIDSON COLLEGE 1440 426 10 0.02
EARLHAM COLLEGE 1340 249 4 0.02
GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS COLLEGE 1260 703 14 0.02
HAMILTON COLLEGE 1420 457 9 0.02
HANOVER COLLEGE 1280 217 4 0.02
HOBART WILLIAM SMITH COLLEGES 1270 446 9 0.02
HOPE COLLEGE 1260 638 11 0.02
LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY 1340 314 5 0.02
MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE 1500 632 14 0.02
MILLSAPS COLLEGE 1290 225 5 0.02
MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE 1380 553 9 0.02
MUHLENBERG COLLEGE 1320 595 14 0.02
OBERLIN COLLEGE 1440 722 15 0.02
OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE 1360 459 8 0.02
PITZER COLLEGE 1330 207 4 0.02
POMONA COLLEGE 1530 394 6 0.02
RANDOLPH-MACON COLLEGE 1210 235 5 0.02
SAINT JOHNS UNIVERSITY 1260 494 12 0.02
SKIDMORE COLLEGE 1340 597 10 0.02
SMITH COLLEGE 1370 688 14 0.02
TRINITY COLLEGE 1400 492 8 0.02
UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND 1355 579 13 0.02
UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND 1390 757 15 0.02
VASSAR COLLEGE 1460 614 10 0.02
VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE 1230 278 5 0.02
WHEATON COLLEGE 1420 604 14 0.02
WHITMAN COLLEGE 1440 337 7 0.02

collegehelp · July 17, 2010, 3:28pm

list of top national universities sorted by the proportion of math graduates. IPEDS 2004 data.

university, US News engineering rank, SAT 75th percentile, total number of bachelors graduates, number of bachelors in math, proportion of math bachelors

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 4 1570 208 21 0.1
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 1 1560 1194 94 0.08
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 1530 1014 48 0.05
HARVARD UNIVERSITY 31 1580 1797 72 0.04
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER 1410 1174 52 0.04
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 8 1480 1261 43 0.03
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK 27 1560 1804 46 0.03
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE 41 1550 1064 31 0.03
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY 2 1450 6650 221 0.03
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES 22 1410 7026 218 0.03
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE 51 1390 605 20 0.03
BROWN UNIVERSITY 36 1520 1490 30 0.02
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY 36 1420 790 16 0.02
DUKE UNIVERSITY 22 1530 1539 26 0.02
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 14 1490 1288 25 0.02
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 14 1500 1999 31 0.02
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 12 1560 1114 20 0.02
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE 18 1420 1319 26 0.02
RICE UNIVERSITY 18 1540 716 11 0.02
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY 1300 1397 32 0.02
STANFORD UNIVERSITY 2 1550 1713 38 0.02
SUNY AT BINGHAMTON 1340 2285 41 0.02
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 11 1340 8917 190 0.02
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-RIVERSIDE 1200 2893 55 0.02
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SAN DIEGO 22 1360 4131 62 0.02
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA CRUZ 1280 3053 48 0.02
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME 41 1470 2052 40 0.02
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON-SEATTLE CAMPUS 22 1310 7194 146 0.02
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY 41 1440 1514 35 0.02
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIV 14 1290 4876 85 0.02
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY 1410 1000 15 0.02
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY 1290 2296 17 0.01
BOSTON COLLEGE 1410 2223 28 0.01
BOSTON UNIVERSITY 67 1390 3991 50 0.01
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY 1440 816 7 0.01
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY 1320 6829 39 0.01
CLARK UNIVERSITY 1305 449 6 0.01
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY 57 1300 3020 20 0.01
COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY 1440 1418 21 0.01
CORNELL UNIVERSITY-ENDOWED COLLEGES 8 1490 3577 35 0.01
EMORY UNIVERSITY 1460 1480 19 0.01
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY 1290 1604 11 0.01
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 1470 1670 18 0.01
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-MAIN CAMPUS 6 1430 2594 22 0.01
INDIANA UNIVERSITY-BLOOMINGTON 1220 6172 41 0.01
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY 36 1230 4523 33 0.01
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY 41 1380 1123 13 0.01
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY 1280 1549 10 0.01
MIAMI UNIVERSITY-OXFORD 1320 3784 35 0.01
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 41 1240 7783 60 0.01
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 1410 4492 58 0.01
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 27 1280 8288 64 0.01
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 18 1290 9134 91 0.01
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY 1310 800 4 0.01
PURDUE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 8 1260 6242 86 0.01
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-NEW BRUNSWICK 51 1310 5734 68 0.01
STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 1390 352 4 0.01
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY 67 1320 2798 14 0.01
TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY 14 1300 7914 73 0.01
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE 67 1240 4035 28 0.01
TUFTS UNIVERSITY 67 1470 1336 15 0.01
TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA 1435 1452 10 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS 27 1280 5608 63 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE 49 1310 4633 57 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA BARBARA 36 1300 4564 68 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER 36 1280 5196 62 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT 1270 3673 32 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 31 1360 8574 60 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 1320 5769 33 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 4 1410 6763 98 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 51 1240 4015 29 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND-COLLEGE PARK 22 1370 5959 65 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI 1350 2155 11 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-ANN ARBOR 6 1390 5923 86 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES 18 1280 6049 80 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA 1280 4086 40 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 27 1510 2797 25 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH-MAIN CAMPUS 57 1330 3861 42 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA-MAIN CAMPUS 31 1430 3207 32 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 12 1390 6336 75 0.01
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST LOUIS 41 1520 1634 17 0.01
YALE UNIVERSITY 41 1560 1339 16 0.01
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY 1350 575 8 0.01

fallenchemist · July 17, 2010, 3:40pm

OK collegehelp, tell me what the Gourman methodology was. I bet you don’t even know. And you didn’t respond to the fact that it was published in 1997.

Tell me how you would measure the quality of an undergrad program in anything. Papers published by faculty? No, that is a grad school measure. Ability of the faculty members as teachers? Unmeasureable, and certainly not reliably surveyed anywhere. Class sizes and strength of peers? That is known for the school in general, but not for an individual major like math.

In addition, people only take about 25% of their courses in their major, maybe 1 or 2 more. Should a person pick a huge school in the midwest because it is highly “ranked” in math when what they really want is a small school setting in the south? All those listings and stats are just so much noise. Rankings at the undergrad level are impossible to measure, and is worse than ignorance because they can be very misleading and distract from the more important factors in choosing an undergraduate school.

collegehelp · July 17, 2010, 3:46pm

Gourman Report
INTRODUCTION

Since 1967, The Gourman Report has made an intensive effort to determine what
constitutes academic excellence or quality in American colleges and .universities.
The result of that research and study is found within this book.

The Gourman Report is the only qualitative guide to institutions of higher education
that assigns a precise, numerical score to each school and program. This score is
derived from a comprehensive assessment of each program’s strengths and
shortcomings. This method makes it simple to examine the effectiveness of a given
educational program, or compare one program to another.

These deceptively simple numerical ratings take into account a wide variety of
empirical data. The Gourman Report is not a popularity contest or an opinion poll,
but an objective evaluation of complex information drawn from the public record,
private research foundations, and universities themselves. Many of the resources
employed in this research, while public, are not easily accessible. Individual
researchers attempting to collect this data in order to compare institutions or
programs would face a daunting task.

This book is intended for use by:

• Young people and parents wishing to make informed choices
about higher education.
• Educators and administrators interested in an independent
evaluation of their programs …

• Prospective employers who wish to assess the educational
qualifications of college graduates.
• Schools wishing to improve undergraduate programs
• Foundations involved in funding colleges and universities.
• Individuals interested in identifying fraudulent or inferior
institutions …
• Citizens concerned about the quality of today’s higher education.
For all of these researchers, the breadth and convenience of the data in The
Gourman Report can greatly facilitate the study of higher education.

Method of Evaluation

Much of the material used in compiling The Gourman Report is internal-drawn
from educators and administrators at the schools themselves. These individuals are
permitted to evaluate only their own programs-as they know them from daily
experience-and not the programs of other institutions. Unsolicited appraisals are

occasionally considered (and weighed accordingly), but the bulk 'of our
contributions come from people chosen for their academic qualifications, their
published works, and their interest in improving the quality of higher education. It
attests to the dedication of these individuals (and also to the serious problems in
higher education today) that over 90% of our requests for contributions are met
with a positive response.

In addition, The Gourman Report draws on many external resources which are a
matter of record, such as funding for public universities as authorized by legislative
bodies, required filings by schools to meet standards of non-discrimination, and
material provided by the institutions (and independently verified) about faculty
makeup and experience, fields of study offered, and physical plant.

Finally, The Gourman Report draws upon the findings of individuals, associations

and agencies whose business it is to make accurate projections of the success that

will be enjoyed by graduates from given institutions and disciplines. While the

methods employed by these resources are proprietary, their findings have

consistently been validated by experience, and they are an important part .of our

research.

The Gourman Report’s rating of educational institutions is analogous to the grading
of a college essay examination. What may appear to be a subjective process is in
fact a patient sifting of empiricar data by analysts who understand both the “subject
matter” (the fields of study under evaluation), and the “students” (the colleges and
universities themselves). The fact that there are virtually no “tie” scores indicates
the accuracy and effectiveness of this methodology. So does the consistent
affirmation of the ratings in The Gourman Report by readers who are in a position
to evaluate certain programs themselves.

The following criteria are taken into consideration in the evaluation of each
educational program and institution. It should be noted that, because disciplines
vary in their educational methodology, the significance given each criterion will vary
from the rating of one discipline to the next; however, our evaluation is consistent
for all schools listed within each field of study.

<ol>
<li>Auspices, control and organization of the institution; </li>
<li>Number of educational programs offered and degrees conferred
(with additional attention to “sub-fields” available to students
within a particular discipline);</li>
<li>Age (experience level) of the institution and of the individual
discipline or program and division;</li>
<li>Faculty, including qualifications, experience, intellectual interests,
attainments, and professional productivity (including research);</li>
<li>Students, including quality of scholastic work and records of
graduates both in graduate study and in practice;
• The Goullnan Report-Undergraduate </li>
<li>Basis of and requirements for admission of students (overall and
by individual discipline) </li>
<li>Number of students enrolled (overall and for each discipline); </li>
<li>Curriculum and curricular content of the program or discipline
and division;</li>
<li>Standards and quality of instruction (including teaching loads); </li>
<li>Quality of administration, including attitudes and policy toward
teaching, research and scholarly production in each discipline,
and administration research;</li>
<li>Quality and availability of non-departmental areas such as
counseling and career placement services;</li>
<li>Quality of physical plant devoted to undergraduate, graduate and
professional levels; </li>
<li>Finances, including budgets, investments, expenditures and
sources of income for both public and private institutions;</li>
<li>Library, including number of volumes, appropriateness of
materials to individual disciplines, and accessibility of materials;</li>
<li>Computer facility sufficient to support current research activities
for both faculty and students;</li>
<li>Sufficient funding for research equipment and infrastructure; </li>
<li>Number of teaching and research assistantships; </li>
<li>Academic-athletic balance.
ipecific information about the data used to rank institutions and programs is
Ivailable in Appendix A and Appendix B.</li>
</ol>

fallenchemist · July 17, 2010, 3:51pm

That’s all very nice, but it doesn’t tell what his methodology actually was, what weightings he used, how he measured the immeasrable, etc. [The</a> Gourman Report - college-rankings - College Confidential](<a href=“http://www.collegeconfidential.com/college_rankings/gourman_report.htm]The”>http://www.collegeconfidential.com/college_rankings/gourman_report.htm)

A qualitative guide that assigns precise numbers??? That is a total laugh right there.

Another critique:

Statistically impossible data. Ranks of nonexistant departments. Sounds pretty reliable to me.

fallenchemist · July 17, 2010, 3:55pm

BTW, over 70% of undergrads change their major at least once. Another good reason not to base a college choice on what major one thinks one wants.

Just looking at that intro you posted some more.

Do you have any idea what that means and how you measure it numerically?

Really?? Is he joking? Do you really think Stanford or Cal Tech should be rated down because they are not as old as William and Mary or Transylvania University? OMG.

I could go on, but I am laughing too hard.

JohnAdams12 · July 17, 2010, 6:51pm

fallenchemist and this underscores why a student should choose a school that is excellent in many departments, not just a couple

fallenchemist · July 17, 2010, 7:11pm

Well sure, in a sense, among other criteria. I am still not always sure what being an “excellent department” at the undergrad level entails. I mean, I know what I would want to see, but most of that is unknowable from looking at rankings and stats. In any case, while it isn’t the only thing, certainly a large part of the decision, in my opinion, should be to go to the school that is most challenging to you that you can get accepted to and afford. But of course that doesn’t mean other criteria should be ignored.

collegehelp · July 17, 2010, 7:13pm

I’ve heard those criticisms of the Gourman Report before. fallenchemist, you are very quick to accept those criticisms without question. You should be more skeptical about those criticisms. The Gourman Report does, in fact, allow for tie scores. The Gourman Report only rated programs that DO exist. Sometimes the programs are called by different names and these alternative names are listed in the Gourman Report.

Math Rankings: is this accurate?

CONNECT WITH US